Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

February 22, 2014

Lying

Sometimes, for the sake of pedagogy, it is best to suppress some of the ugly details, in order to give a clear exposition of the idea behind a particular concept one is trying to teach. But clarity isn’t achieved by outright lies. And I always find myself frustrated when our introductory courses descend to the latter.

My colleague, Sonia, is teaching the introductory “Waves” course (Phy 315) which, as you might imagine, is all about solving the equation

To “illustrate” this, in their compulsory lab accompanying the course, the students were given the task of measuring the normal modes of a thin metal bar, with free boundary conditions at each end, sinusoidally driven by an electromagnet (of adjustable frequency).

Unfortunately, this “illustration” is a complete lie. The transverse oscillations of the metal bar are governed by an equation which is not even approximately like (1); the dispersion relation looks nothing like (2); “free boundary conditions” look nothing like (3) and therefore it should not surprise you that the normal modes look nothing like (4).

Unfortunately, so inured are they to this sort of thing, that only one (out of 120!) students noticed that something was amiss in their experiment. “Hey,” he emailed Sonia, “Why is the n=1n=1 mode absent?”

Rather than the 2nd-order wave equation, the transverse vibrations of the thin bar are governed by a 4th-order equation

which is nothing like (4). The first few solutions to (7) are kL=1.50562π,2.49975π,3.50001πk L = 1.50562\pi,\, 2.49975\pi,\, 3.50001\pi, and the lowest mode has a vague (and somewhat accidental) resemblance to the n=2n=2 mode of (5).

Analyzing the solutions to (6) is very interesting, but arguably way more complicated than we ought to be doing for students still struggling to understand (1). But assigning them the task of studying the vibrating bar experimentally, and telling them that it’s governed by (1), is just a complete disservice.

What were the folks who designed the lab thinking?

Posted by distler at February 22, 2014 3:55 PM

TrackBack URL for this Entry: https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/2701